Bigotry Determined Webster’s New
World Dictionary defines “bigot” as “a person who holds blindly and
intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.” and “bigotry” as “the
behavior, attitude, or beliefs of a bigot.”

Police State Thomas Kachadurian’s column might get the facts right but misses the story.

Oppose The Shell Game Is this a
Shell Game? As a Democrat, I support increased taxes on motor fuels and
vehicles to provide funding for our transportation infrastructure.

Sugars On The Way Senator Patrick
Colbeck from Canton introduced a bill and the Senate passed it allowing
schools and Girl & Boy Scout troops to have up to 3 bake sales per
week.

Taking the pledge

Taking the PledgeRepublicans, especially presidential candidates, are on the verge of beinginundated with pledges. Not to the Constitution or their constituentsbecause that would actually make some sense. No, they are now expected tosign on to a number of special interest group pledges. Failure to do socould result in a candidate being shunned by the very voters he or shemost needs.There is a certain irony in all of this. Our Constitution includes thespecific language of the presidents oath of office but not for members ofCongress. It only requires that our Senators and Representatives ...shall be bound by oath or affirmation... to defend and protect thatremarkable document.In 1789, Congress came up with a pretty good little oath; clean, simpleand straightforward: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will supportthe Constitution of the United States.Alas, those 14 words lasted only about 75 years. After the Civil War anew oath was conjured up, allegedly to protect us from those peskysoutherners and their traitorous northern brethren. And, of course, theubiquitous so help me God was added.We now have plenty of oaths and pledges and none of them are especiallybrief or elegant. The target for all of them seems to be Republicans who,apparently, cannot be trusted unless theyve signed some kind of pledge.Special interest groups have always demanded a certain amount of loyaltyin exchange for their support. Nothing surprising or untoward about that.But 2012 Republican presidential candidates are faced with more litmustests than a 6th grade science class.For starters, there is the No New Taxes pledge of Grover Norquist and hisAmericans for Tax Reform. This one is so old  it was first offered in1986  its practically an historical document in political terms. Itactually is simple; no new taxes, period.So far, more than 230 Republican members of the House and 40 members ofthe Senate have signed Norquists pledge. They arent raising taxes orvoting for any new taxes no matter what. It does sort of limit they wayin which they deal with the current budget mess and eliminates theirability to become involved in any kind of rational budget discussions but,hey, they signed a pledge.As you would expect, there is also a Pro-Life Presidential Leadershippledge. It is exactly what youd guess; a promise to oppose abortionsunder almost any circumstance and work to overturn Roe v. Wade. Weveheard both sides of this argument so many times over so many years we canrecite the entire debate by rote.A new player in the pledge sweepstakes is something called the Cut, Capand Balance pledge. The idea is to cut the budget, create spending capsthat are actually enforceable and support a constitutional amendment thatrequires the budget be balanced. The House has now passed cut, cap andbalance legislation but the Senate is incredibly unlikely to follow suitand the president has already promised a veto in the unlikely event thebill reaches his desk.Far and away the most spectacular of the current pledges comes from anewly minted special interest group in Iowa calling itself The FamilyLeader. Theyve concocted a real dandy of a pledge, the Declaration ofDependence Upon Marriage and Family, ostensibly to protect traditionalmarriage as the union of one man and one woman. That would have been simple enough as a standard anti-gay marriagepromise. But the Family Leader pledge contains 14 points. Among otherthings, it requires support of faithful constitutionalist judges,opposition to abortion, opposition to pornography, and in a delightfulbit of nonsense, opposition to Sharia law. Of course, there is noIslamic Sharia law in our justice system, no one has suggested any suchthing, no such thing is even remotely possible but its a nice bit ofugly Muslim-baiting by the conservative evangelicals who created thisabomination. Most of the time special interest groups have enough common sense torealize theyll need to do more than just threaten candidates who dontnecessarily agree with every single thing they want. They lobby them,talk to them, reason with them, attempt to persuade them. At leastthat used to be the case. Not so much anymore.Those who now offer up these pledges have a different approach  sign thispledge or we will destroy you politically. Its not neighborly orespecially productive.We understand that Republicans now pledging away their independence mustappeal to their base. That means mostly conservative voters, especiallythose identifying themselves as evangelicals, who tend to turn out forprimary elections in larger numbers than other Republican voters. Signingall these pledges proves the candidate is serious about issues importantto those voters.It also makes it difficult to appeal to Independents, cross-over Democratsand other general election voters who may not agree with every word ofevery pledge. Having pledged themselves into an ideological corner,theres no room for escape.If elected, adherence to the pledges becomes even more nonsensical sinceelected officials are supposed to represent all of us, not just those whoagree with their pledge-taking. Governing requires room forgive-and-take, not rigid adherence to the narrow visions of a narrowsegment of the electorate.A better pledge might be this  I promise to behave like an adult, refrainfrom insulting those with whom I dont agree, tell the truth, try my bestto represent all the people in my district (or state or country), alwaysunderstand that I work for my constituents and not the other way around,and believe the Constitution is a living document I will support, protectand defend.